Topic: GoldenEye Discussion Thread (OMG OMG OMG)

Once again: Team Fortress 2 launched with six maps. I understand it's not what you'd prefer, but if it were ridiculous and inexcusable, this game would not be so popular today. Of course, it has had maps added since launch, something Goldeneye won't have the benefit of, but the game was very popular before then.

The vast majority of games I played were in Facility or Archive, so if the levels are of this quality, I'll want to play them again and again anyway. Perhaps this'll be a budget title to justify the fewer maps. Then I'd definitely get it.

Of course, Team Fortress 2 was in the Orange Box, packed with several other excellent games. It not being as full featured was easier to overlook.

Well, multiplayer is just a portion of Goldeneye, too. I don't think the comparison is unfair, though obviously not exactly the same.

Team Fortress is also sold on its own for $20 according to its official site, which is nearly half the average retail price of a game (and lots of Wii games go for $40, which Goldeneye well could), so if you think of it as paying half for multiplayer, half for single, the comparison stands. The value will hinge on the quality of the maps and variety of game play modes.

I hope Activision can work something out with Ninty, but if there only 5 maps,and there amazing to play on, I would be happy.

Some cam footage of the 4 player split-screen gameplay from E3:
(let me know if someone already posted these)

The particular level here looks rather dull (at least from what we can see here), so I hope it's one of the lessor of the set.

"Dull" is definitely the word. What optimism I had with my strained Team Fortress comparison is shattered. If this is indeed one fifth of the multiplayer, I'm not impressed. I was also hoping that regenerative health was the only modernization of the game play, but the running and context-sensitive stuff seems straight out of Call of Duty, just placed in a vaguely nostalgic package. Might have to start looking into Conduit 2 for my split-screen shooter needs.

Wait. What?

Nevermind, I don't want this game anymore.

Quick melee kills are too easy, I wanna have to slap someone repeatedly, looking like a maniac running around flapping that arm when I run out of ammo. It's those ridiculous situations (being badly injured -- with no regen -- and out of ammo, but hoping to make a beeline for a gun and squeeze off one shot before dying) that made the original fun. Realism and unbroken seriousness in a shooter = bad.

Also, those jerks went to the options menu and then just wasted our time on the controls screen, instead of showing us what the available multiplayer options might be (no regen health?).

Oh god no... sigh

Yeah does look fairly dull from the video. Some nice touches to it but looks uninspired. The first conduit was more exciting. This seems too modern in some ways and too behind the times in others.

There also sounds like there may not be as much variety in options for multiplayer as there should be. The original goldeneye noted for having really customizable multiplayer when any other fps on a console had like 1 or 2 options. One hit kills with pistols only was a favorite back in the day. Later games like the real successor timesplitters added even more options. Modern fps games are supposed to have way more options so only a couple modes and 16 "modifiers" actually doesn't add up to much these days.

Seems to me this is a cash in to take advantage of popularity of the original and demand for a VC release. I'm hoping conduit 2 will be something special and have more exciting multiplayer.

This game is beginning to look like a let-down already, but I'm hoping that between now and its release date the developers will scour forums for feedback and alter some of these disappointing details (particularly in the splitscreen multi-player)...

• No regenerating health! It's one of the things that makes modern-day FPS games bland.
• Don't skimp on the content and option customization. How can you expect people to buy a game that has less content than its predecessor?
• Nix the CC support. This is the Wii you're developing for, the system with arguably the best control scheme for this type of game, so why tack on support for the archaic, clunky control scheme that's available on the two competitor's consoles (aka dual-analog)?
• As others have already said, make the game fun and accessible to everyone (unlike the shooters on the HD consoles which are not quite accessible to newbies playing against seasoned players).
• Focus the majority of your efforts on the splitscreen mode. This is GoldenEye you're re-imagining. Sure, online multi-player is what's now considered the norm (which sucks, in my opinion), but a great splitscreen experience is absolutely crucial if this game is to have any chance of success (especially with the fanbase that's most likely to purchase it—those of us who were/are still hooked on the original).

After playing splitscreen on the original GoldenEye for a few hours these last few days with my brother and my best friend I can't help but think that it truly does suck that this new GoldenEye couldn't simply be an updated version of the original game. Damned legal issues...

@Metroid_Fan

Agreed, on all counts.

I really disagree about nixing classic support. Don't use it if you don't like it. What is the point in forbidding others the pleasure? The Wii is surprisingly expensive if you have all these games that require you to buy a bazillion different accessories. It is just not realistic for me to get four nunchuks and four classics and four motion pluses. All four-player games would do best to allow mixing and matching.

This doesn't really add up. Yes, it's a Wii game, but to make it accessible and reach the broadest audience possible Activision needs to cater to everyone, including those that don't like the way FPS games control with the Remote. Motion controls don't seem too integral to Bond of Duty anyway, it's no Red Steel 2 in that regard, so there's no harm in including the option.

Frankly I'm surprised it's taken this long to get CC support in a Wii FPS. So far it seems to be the only genre that hasn't tried to cater to controller tradition.

Water Warfare has CC support but there's no point in even trying online, you'll get massacred. The developers did say they included CC support because it seems a lot of people don't like using the pointer for shooters.

They're going to have to do something to balance it though which means Wiimote controls will probably be nerfed.

To be fair, in this case it would just be the additional nunchuks, because Motion Plus isn't involved, and you'll need a Wii remote for each classic controller in use anyway (unless you're using GC, but are those even supported here?).

Anyhow, no need to completely nix the CC support, but it is crucial, in my mind, that the devs build the entire experience around the Wiimote controls, perfecting it for that unique way of playing. Having control options is often a way to avoid perfecting any one setup.

In fact, I generally oppose the idea that it is the ideal to have as many control options screens and adjustments as possible; to me that's just laziness of design. Just like I expect every minute detail of the level design to be perfected, and no user-generated content can make up for that (even though it's great for additional replay value), I also expect the developers to have worked out the controls to a painstaking degree, even down to the tiniest fraction of sensitivity, so that it perfectly matches the game's challenges and interactions. I find that options for adjusting sensitivity, dead-zone, and so forth are just evidence that the proper level of testing and perfection hasn't taken place.

That being said. . . sure, keep additional options, but those options had best not be an excuse for failing to take control design and optimization at least as seriously as any other facet of the game design.

Yea, but this is just one game. What if Goldeneye nixed Classic Support, but some other game I wanted nixed Nunchuk support? I was just saying that this is not good for the Wii as a platform in general. I have four Wii remotes (one with a broken motion sensor) and two or three of the other accessories (nunchuk, classic, M+). It just is not realistic for me to invest in four of everything. Being able to mix and match for four-player games is ideal for everyone.

I can't see anything lazy about offering more options than necessary. That seems exactly the opposite, and I appreciate the effort developers put in to make this possible. I don't want to have to buy two more nunchuks to play this with friends, just like I'm glad I didn't have to buy more classics to play Brawl. That sort of thing adds up. Four remotes is expensive enough on its own, but getting four classics and nunchuks doubles that.

I do agree with you from the perspective of making multiplayer easier; that makes perfect sense. I'm not saying that additional control options necessarily arises out of laziness; I'm just noting that it can often be an excuse for not perfecting the controls, or not taking seriously the notion that the game should be built around the controls rather than tacking them on as an afterthought. In particular, I get annoyed by the adjustments of sensitivity / dead zone / etc, because I don't want, as a player, to have to fiddle with these things on a console. I expect that to have been perfected and streamlined.

Well, I want the best option default, but I like my options, especially sensitivity and (for dual analog) the option to turn off the super-confusing up/down reversal. I am shooting a gun, not flying my aeroplane. Never had a game with "dead zone" options though.

Inverted 4 life!